The majority of the active members of AN are ex-christians or ex-pseudo-christians, and the majority of discussions are about living in a world dominated by christianity. But this is Atheist-Nexus, not just ex-christian-nexus.

Sometimes I am wondering about those, who share the critical discussions about the absurdity of christianity from the mental distance of never having been immersed. How atheistic are the ex-muslims, ex-jews, ex-hindus, ex-buddhists, ex-sikhs and other religions, who never criticize there own religious background?

I have the suspicion, that some people from non-western cultures do not really separate christianity and western-culture. While christianity has contributed to form western culture, this western culture can be modified to become an atheist western culture. Criticizing christianity does not devalue the entire western culture and it does certainly not make other cultures appear better by comparison.I am wondering, how many people from non-christian cultures mistake AN as a forum for sharing their resentments against western culture by sharing the criticism of christianity, while they are not really free from their own religion.

All religions do harm to people by influencing the entire culture, and the harm is not limited to those, who are adherents of the religion. I am missing a ruthless discussion of the detriments of all religions. I am missing the voices all those ex-adherents of other religions criticizing not only the direct absurdity and damage done by their religion, but also the indirect consequences thereof upon their societies.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Period, full stop. Atheists can believe in all sorts of other weird shit and still be atheists. I'd say they're shitty atheists, if they're not also skeptics, but they're still atheists.

Hmm, I just pulled up the Wikipedia page on 'Sikh', myself. Weird. I must have heard about it from some strange offshoot sect that had chucked the deity part of their beliefs. Anyway, the vast majority of Buddhists are atheists, although there's one odd sect that worships Buddha as a god.

The concise Oxford defines Atheism as disbelief in the existence of a god or gods and other dictionaries use similar wording. The Encyclopedias talk of Atheism in the broader sense, for example, Wikipaedia says Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I would not accept people exercising faith and supernatural belief as Atheists, if only crackpot Atheists. The word 'belief' in the broader sense includes faith and supernatural belief.

Not associated with atheism, supported by atheism, or related to atheism ... but not excluded by atheism, either. If you want to get rid of all of the other weird shit, you have to turn to another -ism, like skepticism, as I said before.

How can someone who rejects theism maintain belief in angels, devils and easter bunnies and be a rational thinker ? I'll stick to Atheism. As you say Joseph we're looking at what's not excluded by Atheism.

Atheism isn't really the absence of religions, it's just the absence of any belief in God. Buddhists and Raelians, for example, are examples of religious atheists, since they follow a religion, but don't believe in any kind of God.

The topic of this thread is independent of the question, how many weird delusions are tolerated in people, who are allowed to call themselves atheists. Psychologically seen, a believer in reincarnation is as insane as a believer in something, that can be defined as a deity.

No. No, it can't. A belief in reincarnation can be defined as a belief in an afterlife, not a belief in a deity. You're making a gross equivocation fallacy here. Atheism is a response to only one question. If you want to answer more questions, you need to move into something more comprehensive, like skepticism.

Well, when you say absurd things like the second sentence in your previous post, I'm going to respond to them. If you don't want conversational tangents, then don't say things that need to be addressed.

That's what got us off on the earlier tangent, as well. When you say things about ex-Buddhists, that requires addressing. There's no ex- about it.